(April 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm)RozKek Wrote: Are you saying philosophy is more logical than science? It's the other way around, science starts out with logic and reason.

I guess you never heard of Aristotle's "Prior Analytics". Where do you think science got logic in the first place, Bozo?

Demonstrate God, Chad. Come on. Demonstrate your existential knowledge so they we may all bow down to your superior intellectual path to the true meaning of life. Quit spouting off and SHOW US. I mean, you so very badly want us all to understand that you were right all along. How else will you accomplish this without being able to present evidence in favor of your position? The best I've ever seen you do is, "it's ignorant to think you can't learn things from philosophy." What now? We're all waiting with bated breath.

(April 15, 2016 at 9:30 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

I guess you never heard of Aristotle's "Prior Analytics". Where do you think science got logic in the first place, Bozo?

Demonstrate God, Chad.   Come on.  Demonstrate your existential knowledge so they we may all bow down to your superior intellectual path to the true meaning of life.  Quit spouting off and SHOW US.  I mean, you so very badly want us all to understand that you were right all along.  How else will you accomplish this without being able to present evidence in favor of your position?   The best I've ever seen you do is, "it's ignorant to think you can't learn things from philosophy."  What now?  We're all waiting with bated breath.

If any religion had the answers then why are there so many? Funny how you don't need to pray to your car when it breaks down, you go to a mechanic. Funny how you don't pray to your TV or computer. Funny how quickly people abandon their faith when they get sick.

(April 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm)RozKek Wrote: Are you saying philosophy is more logical than science? It's the other way around, science starts out with logic and reason.

I guess you never heard of Aristotle's "Prior Analytics". Where do you think science got logic in the first place, Bozo?

I assume you mean science is based on philosophy, alright, but they aren't mutually exclusive are they? So what is the problem of using science in a philosophical discussion? I refer to Drich right now.

Also is it a tradition for christians to use laughing emoticons in a mocking way?

(April 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm)RozKek Wrote: I assume you mean science is based on philosophy, alright, but they aren't mutually exclusive are they? So what is the problem of using science in a philosophical discussion? I refer to Drich right now.

You're right that they are not mutually exclusive. What Drich and I are saying is that there is a one-way kind of dependency between science and philosophy. As it specifically relates to metaphysics, the cosmological arguments concerning the existence of God simply happen at level of inquiry above natural science. And here is why...

Scientific inquiries rely on logical proofs. The validity of logic does not depend on any scientific finding. So for example you can use a syllogism to demonstrate a scientific fact, but no scientific fact demonstrates the validity of logic. Likewise, science assumes that particular objects can be grouped together in universal categories and also assumes that we can know facts applicable to all members of that category. But science cannot tell you the ontological status of categories as categories, i.e. are they is some sense real or are they just names. The same goes for mathematics. Mathematical and philosophical inquires produce knowledge about certain kinds of objects without any reference to how those objects express themselves in nature. The value of pi doesn't come from the average of measurements taken from various circular objects. Pi has an absolute value that does not depend on empirical observations. And there is no possible test that would falsify that absolute value.

Some people say that all legitimate truth claims must be testable and empirically verified. But they don't apply that requirement to the claim "all legitimate claims must be testable and empirically verified". And for good reason. They are making a philosophical claim about natural science and how natural science should be performed but they are mistakenly applying it to philosophical claims. In other words, the so-called defenders of rationality, are making an illogical circular argument.

dat sophistry

(April 15, 2016 at 4:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm)RozKek Wrote: I assume you mean science is based on philosophy, alright, but they aren't mutually exclusive are they? So what is the problem of using science in a philosophical discussion? I refer to Drich right now.

You're right that they are not mutually exclusive. What Drich and I are saying is that there is a one-way kind of dependency between science and philosophy. As it specifically relates to metaphysics, the cosmological arguments concerning the existence of God simply happen at level of inquiry above natural science. And here is why...

Scientific inquiries rely on logical proofs. The validity of logic does not depend on any scientific finding. So for example you can use a syllogism to demonstrate a scientific fact, but no scientific fact demonstrates the validity of logic. Likewise, science assumes that particular objects can be grouped together in universal categories and also assumes that we can know facts applicable to all members of that category. But science cannot tell you the ontological status of categories as categories, i.e. are they is some sense real or are they just names. The same goes for mathematics. Mathematical and philosophical inquires produce knowledge about certain kinds of objects without any reference to how those objects express themselves in nature. The value of pi doesn't come from the average of measurements taken from various circular objects. Pi has an absolute value that does not depend on empirical observations. And there is no possible test that would falsify that absolute value.

Some people say that all legitimate truth claims must be testable and empirically verified. But they don't apply that requirement to the claim "all legitimate claims must be testable and empirically verified". And for good reason. They are making a philosophical claim about natural science and how natural science should be performed but they are mistakenly applying it to philosophical claims. In other words, the so-called defenders of rationality, are making an illogical circular argument.

No, what you are both doing is compartmentalizing to avoid the fact neither of you, and don't feel bad, no religion can either, is take your claims into a neutral lab an prove it. So all you have are word games.

I'd love to see a Buddhist and Hindu and Christian and Muslim and Jew and any other, as a group, go into a lab and hash it out so the rest of the world doesn't have to put up with all the bullshit violence. But, you wont, like they wont, because no religion wants to do the right thing and accept it is simply a personal like.

Religion teaches humans to value pretty stories instead of valuing our common existence. And as soon as you get stuck on pretty, that is where humans start getting ugly.

(April 15, 2016 at 4:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So all you have are word games.

So once the philosophy gets too complicated, you bail.

(April 15, 2016 at 9:30 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 8:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

I guess you never heard of Aristotle's "Prior Analytics". Where do you think science got logic in the first place, Bozo?

Demonstrate God, Chad.   Come on.  Demonstrate ...

Do it Chad. Do it.

Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring

And in this corner, weighing in at 850 thousand miles of published works, Science and Empiricism....

Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfyLbin9gs

What you gonna take refuge in nomenclature?

Once we get anywhere near those dirty, nasty specifics - urgh!, the concrete - anything that we can actually check - you're the one that bails.

Why that sequence of colours in the rainbow, always appearing in the same climatic conditions, Chad? God?
Why do diamonds glint at that specific angle to the light, Chad? God?
Why do fish have pointy heads, Chad? Was it God?
Why do some stars look different from others, Chad? God's will?
Why polymers, Chad? A god who tells his people not to wear mixed fabrics?
Why does radio work, Chad? Was it God, waiting for us to find out about it all along?
Why the jet stream, Chad? God?
Why are some steels harder than others, Chad? God makes them hard?
Where did the Flood come from, Chad? God?
Why infection, Chad? Was it god?
Why coagulation, Chad? God?
Differentiation between the species? God?
Planets almost like our own - god?
Gas giants dying through gravity - no mention of it in your ancient texts.
No neutrinos, no blood circulation, no lymphatic system.
No calcium pathways, no axons.

Where is your method for answering these questions definitively, Chad? I'm not talking about a theory that sounds good. How can you show you're right? Where is your method for finding out new things?

Don't reply through this forum - after all, the technology you're using was only made possible through dirty, nasty, unclean, hard checking of theories, finding out whether they were actually right or not, and changing them if they were wrong.

Just reply to us all through prayer - I'm sure you'll manage to transmit all the specifics to us exactly, and it's much cleaner.

There are only so many syllables in all those old books of assertions, Chad. Not an inexhaustible supply....

(April 15, 2016 at 5:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So once the philosophy gets too complicated, you bail.

But science isn't philosophy. Check and recheck isn't philosophy. Peer reviewed theories aren't philosophies.

Philosophy is an idea you elaborate on. It may be the starting point, but if that idea doesn't stand the testing process, it will never turn into science.

(April 15, 2016 at 5:55 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 9:30 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Demonstrate God, Chad.   Come on.  Demonstrate ...

Do it Chad. Do it.

Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring

And in this corner, weighing in at 850 thousand miles of published works, Science and Empiricism....

Get in the ring
Get in the ring
Get in the ring
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING
GET IN THE RING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tfyLbin9gs

What you gonna take refuge in nomenclature?

Once we get anywhere near those dirty, nasty specifics - urgh!, the concrete - anything that we can actually check - you're the one that bails.

Why that sequence of colours in the rainbow, always appearing in the same climatic conditions, Chad? God?
Why do diamonds glint at that specific angle to the light, Chad? God?
Why do fish have pointy heads, Chad? Was it God?
Why do some stars look different from others, Chad? God's will?
Why polymers, Chad? A god who tells his people not to wear mixed fabrics?
Why does radio work, Chad? Was it God, waiting for us to find out about it all along?
Why the jet stream, Chad? God?
Why are some steels harder than others, Chad? God makes them hard?
Where did the Flood come from, Chad? God?
Why infection, Chad? Was it god?
Why coagulation, Chad? God?
Differentiation between the species? God?
Planets almost like our own - god?
Gas giants dying through gravity - no mention of it in your ancient texts.
No neutrinos, no blood circulation, no lymphatic system.
No calcium pathways, no axons.

Where is your method for answering these questions definitively, Chad? I'm not talking about a theory that sounds good. How can you show you're right? Where is your method for finding out new things?

Don't reply through this forum - after all, the technology you're using was only made possible through dirty, nasty, unclean, hard checking of theories, finding out whether they were actually right or not, and changing them if they were wrong.

Just reply to us all through prayer - I'm sure you'll manage to transmit all the specifics to us exactly, and it's much cleaner.

There are only so many syllables in all those old books of assertions, Chad. Not an inexhaustible supply....

This is officially THE BEST POST (IMO) that I've ever read here at AF. Thank you. THANK YOU. :: worship ::